TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1824
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.2008. 2. The first issue in this appeal of assessee is, "Whether the AO has erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 147 read with section 148 of the Act in the given facts and circumstances of the case?" 3. Briefly stated facts are that the relevant assessment year involved is 2001-02. The original assessment was completed by AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 26.03.2004 and reassessment proceedings were initiated by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2008 by recording the following reasons: "While going through the assessment records, it was found that the assessee has not disallowed any expenditure in respect of dividend income exempted u/s. 10(33). The dividend income earned by the assessee from Indian Companies which is ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 148 of the Act to be valid. Aggrieved, assessee came in second appeal before Tribunal. 4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The facts are clear that for the relevant AY 2001-02 assessee filed return of income on 30.10.2001 and original assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2004 and subsequently, the AO recorded reasons u/s. 147 of the Act vide dated 30.03.2008 and served notice u/s. 148 of the Act on assessee on 31.03.2008. It is a fact that the notice has been issued after a period of four years from the end of assessment year and original assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. On perusal of recorded reasons, as set out in para 3 above clearly sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DT Circular No. 11 dated 23.07.2001 and according to us, which cannot be the basis for reopening assessment u/s. 147 read with section 148 of the Act. As the notice has been issued on the basis of the material already available on assessment records, the assessee's case clearly falls under the proviso to section 147 of the Act, for the reasons that the information was already available in the accounts of the assessee which are part of return of income. In the similar circumstances, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Foramer France [2003] 264 ITR 566, (SC), held that since the facts were before the Assessing Officer at the time of framing of original assessment, later a different view taken by him or by his successor on the same fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons are made. 5. In this case, the assessee has filed complete details as is evident from the above facts and the details in respect of divided received and also the details of expenditure, which have been filed by the assessee vide different letters addressed to the AO, we feel that the reopening is just merely a change of opinion and nothing else. The change of opinion is not permissible in law as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Former France (supra) while confirming the decision of Hon'ble Allahadabad High Court in the case of Foramer v. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All.), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under:- "In our opinion, we have to see the law prevailing on the date of issue of the notice under section 148,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r knowledge of fresh facts which were not present at the time of original assessment would constitute a 'reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment' within the meaning of even sec 147 (operative from 1-4-1989). Here also such facts which could have been discovered by the Assessing Officer but were not so discovered at the time of original assessment may not constitute a new information. In that view of the matter, where the Assessing Officer has formed the opinion that the income has escaped assessment because he has allowed the deduction under section 80-I wrongly and even though in recording the reasons the Assessing Officer has used the phrase 'reason to believe', between the date of the original order of ....